General Austin: Only '4 or 5' US-Trained Syrian Rebels Fighting ISIS
Source: ABC NEWS
General Lloyd Austin, the commander of U.S. Central Command leading the war on ISIS, told Congress today that only "four or five" of the first 54 U.S.trained moderate Syrian fighters remain in the fight against ISIS.
Christine Wormuth, the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, also told the Senate Armed Services Committee that there are currently between 100 and 120 fighters in a program that was slated to have trained 5,400 fighters in its first 12 months.
Austin told the panel that goal was not going to be met and that options are being explored about how to retool the program which was intended to train moderate Syrian rebels to fight ISIS. So far, $42 million has been spent to develop the $500 million program which began training in April.
The first 54 graduates of the program were re-inserted into northern Syria in July and were quickly attacked by the Al Nusra Front, the dominant Islamist rebel group in Syria. Though the attack was repelled with U.S. airstrikes, it was characterized as a major setback for the viability of the progam. When Austin was asked how many trained fighters remained in the fight he responded "it's a small number," before adding "the ones that are in the fight, we're talking four or five."
Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/general-austin-us-trained-syrian-rebels-fighting-isis/story?id=33802596
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
salimbag
(173 posts)We get 4 or 5 trained fighters. Who says the pentagon wastes money. What a deal!
McKim
(2,412 posts)it is no surprise after Vietnam that our military would lie to us. I have a relative who last year was training Syrian fighters in Jordan to fight ISIS and it was a big number, not four or five. Ridiculous. Isn't lying to congress a crime?
Or it's hearsay!!!
And don't come back with "it's classified"!!!
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)What purpose would such a lie serve?
christx30
(6,241 posts)Military strategy.
PersonNumber503602
(1,134 posts)So they can say that didn't train a whole bunch of Islamist fundies who will go on to be a problem later. I base that on nothing, and I'm not saying it's the case. I just can't think of any other reason that makes much sense.
GeorgeGist
(25,319 posts)
Yupster
(14,308 posts)If the attack was successful they might be down to three soldiers.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)I can see the trained recruits going home and selling their M16 for a down payment on a new camel (or a home or a wife). If the trainee went in with more advance weapons, a mortar, an TOW missile, he could buy a nice home with the proceeds. The latest radios would be questionable (to many ways to trace them nowadays) but a Humvee would be something one would keep, you can get diesel fuel anywhere in Syria and it will go in most places other then the deep desert.
Now, a Stinger AA missile would be a hot item to sell, it would be worth it to get feed for three to six months by the US Army to one to take to Syria to sell to the highest bidder.
Given the economics of Syria right now, I am surprise they still have 4 or 5 fighters, ISIS has no shortage of money, but the House of Saud wants to make sure no weapons can be traced back to them, thus a preference for non US weapons UNLESS it can be claimed the weapon was obtained from some place else other then Arabia. Thus buying a handful of weapons from these "moderates" would be worth every penny spent.
Any recovered M16 or AR-47 recovered could be blamed to be from these moderates who disappeared NOT the Saudi Arabian Arsenals.
As to ISIS it would be good practice to buy any M16s (AK047) given to these moderates, even if you also have to give them a M16 from Arabia as part of the transaction. Thus if the M16 (or Ak-47) that had been given to these moderates end up in the hands of Assad's government's it can NOT be traced to Arabia.
The official weapon of the Saudi Arabia Army is still the H&K G3 in 7.62x51 NATO. Since 2008 it is being replaced by H&K G36 in 5.56x45 (The same round in the M16). Saudi Arabia has also used the Austrian AUG in 5.56x45 since 1980 but the AUG appears to be only given to select troops not to the regular army or the Saudi National Guard
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_rifle#Saudi_Arabia
On the other hand the Saudis do have M4 Carbine (M16s with 16 inch barrels instead of 20 inch barrels) and even AK-103 (The latest version of the Ak-47). Thus the House of Saud can "lose" these later weapons and claim ISIS is NOT using them, but instead the M4s given to the "Moderate" rebels who just went home.
Sorry, I can see someone taking the training, then going back to Syria and selling what he had been given. It will NOT be the first time something like that has happened.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)happyslug
(14,779 posts)Assad? These soldiers were sent back to a location away from Assad's force, so a slim possibility. Saudi Arabia? No, Turkey? Only of they are selling the weapons to the Kurds.
Sorry, the risk are so small, they probably have a greater chance of being hit by lighting then being "caught".
karynnj
(59,501 posts)Not equal the number still fighting. Some might have been killed, others deserted. There is no reason to lie in that direction. It is an embarrassing failure.
delrem
(9,688 posts)Of course they're "moderate".
I just love "moderates"! Don't you?
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)Just back the Kurds and the existing moderate rebels with airstrikes and arms 
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Western Syria is an Assad strong hold. Lebanon is NOT secure enough for a US Air Base, and the quickest way to make the Kurds look like the evil ones is to launch attacks from Israel.
Jordan will not permit such Air Bases, the present Government is viewed as to pro-US and pro-Israel as it is. Western Iraq, outside Kurdish controlled areas, is controlled by ISIS. Baghdad is controlled by the Shiites of Iraq, who are allied with Iran. Finally Saudi Arabia is supporting ISIS but we do not want to acknowledge that (and thus no US Air attacks from Arabia).
Cyprus has two British Air Bases, but both are within Artillery range of Turkish and Cypress areas of control. Cypress is like Greece depended on Iranian oil, thus a potential place to launch an attack from, but Turkey can object by just firing artillery shells onto the bases (or just threatening to do so).
The nearest secure NATO or US Air base to Syria is in Sicily, and while Libya was within the non refuel range of jets out of that Air Base, Syria is NOT. Thus any Air Attack from Sicily will require at lease two in air refueling, once when the planes have taken off (In Combat Missions Planes take off with maximum ordinance, but reduced fuel loads. The Reduced Fuel load is so the plane does not exceed its max weight for take off. When the Jet reach their cruising height their tanks are top off in aerial refueling). Then the plane must be refueled on the way back to Sicily.
Thus bombing attacks by the US will be limited, the only Aircraft Carrier is in the Arabian Sea off Iran. It could fly into the Persian Gulf and launch attacks, but to get to Syria from the Gulf would require aerial refueling, from some base in the middle east and as seen above we have none.
Thus the US has options, the US can do Air attacks, but they will be limited. The same with cruise missiles. Out Ships in the Eastern Mediterranean can fire several hundred cruse missiles, but at targets that are constantly being moved (it is hard to hit a truck with a cruise missile, not impossible just hard).
When doing operations in the Eastern Mediterranean sea, most US refueling comes from Greece. Greece has a long history of helping the Kurds and get their fuel from Iran, but given the financial situation in Greece, they may demand more the we are willing to pay (The pay demand will include that the US and the EU do something about the refugee program hitting Greece).
The best base to launch at attack on ISIS is in Turkey, but the Turks have used those same bases to launch attacks against Kurds, not only in Turkey but in Syria and Iraq. Thus any attack to "Help the Kurds" from that Turkish Air base will be subject to Turkish approval and the Turks do NOT want the Kurds to win anything anywhere.
This is where I disagree with the Nation and their recent statement that Obama is a master at foreign policy. If he was, he would drop all verbal attacks on Iran and come to a deal with Iran on how Iran will drive ISIS out of Iraq and Syria. This would mean getting the House of Saud Mad at the US, but it would solve the problem of ISIS. AS to what Saudi Arabia could do about it, not much. I am of the opinion an Oil Embargo would be the best thing for the US, it would wake up a lot of people that the US is to depended on Foreign oil.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)The Turks are more vested in their own security than international security, which ISIS is clearly a threat to and Assad is a butcher.
This isn't like a game of Risk. The US and our real allies have tremendous military capacity and the bases in Iraq and the Persian Gulf to support a more aggressive campaign. Why do you think letting Shiite Iran run rampant in Syria and Iraq is a better policy? That will never happen!
If we betray the Kurds as we are doing, it will be a black eye on American foreign policy the likes of which we haven't seen since our failure in Indochina. The message will be clear, the United States will use them when needed and leave them to the slaughter when the going gets tough. We have leverage on the Turks in terms of EU membership and a whole host of other ties, they need to get with the program and accept that there will be a Kurdish autonomous region in time in Syria just as there is in Iraq.
We already are backing the Kurds and the moderate rebels, we're just letting them get slaughtered by the Turks and Assad. The Saudis are too busy starting another Vietnam in Yemen: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027167601
There is no Western plan to end this war, which is why hopes are being pinned on the Russians (that's nuts).
happyslug
(14,779 posts)AND are under the control of a close ally of Saudi Arabia, thus the same veto Turkey has when it comes to helping the Kurds.
Sorry, the only country that has an interest in defeating ISIS is Iran, and the US and its ally Saudi Arabia do NOT want that. As to the other US Allies, Greece is closest but in bad economic condition. Britain does have those Bases on Cypress but there can easily be taken out by the Turks (a Few Shells on the Runway and a quick apology saying it was terrorists that did it would be enough to knock those runways out for a while, FOD is the deadly thing to Jet Planes).
FOD, Foreign Objects and Debris. FOD, if it gets into an engine and take down a get. Flying Birds, as FOD, have been known to take down jets. Thus the shells do not have to do any damage to the runways, just through FOD all over the runways and that FOD has to be cleaned up.
Just a comment that the US has fixed itself into a box. the US can NOT get rid of Assad AND destroy ISIS and Saudi Arabia is rejecting any efforts to destroy ISIS. Thus the US has to think outside of the box it is in, and that means Iran and/or Russia.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)It's nice to have those bases, but the US military is capable of projecting air power anywhere in the world.
What do flying birds have to do with this really? You're losing me with that one. The Turks would attack British military bases?
We can barely negotiate with Iran on nuclear weapons, over Syria? 
There's leverage over the Turks - EU membership and US cooperation. More robust support for the Kurds and the remaining moderate rebels in the area of Alepppo and south of Damascus would make a real difference. Those people rose up, have been fighting Assad, Al-Nusra and ISIS and we argue over distributing defensive weaponry. No wonder Putin thinks we are weak!
Putin is just 
happyslug
(14,779 posts)The US long range air power is aimed at stationary targets, NOT mobile dispersed forces. Yes, the US can load its B-52s with up to 70,000 pounds of bomb each and do a mass carpet bombing. The problem is that is like using a sledgehammer to kill an ant. Possible but a lot of effort and maybe to much if the ant moves enough. Furthermore in Carpet Bombing you end up killing more civilians (and women and children) then you do soldiers.
Cruise missiles are just as bad, good to hit a base camp, even a tent that no one moves, but if the tent is moved every day, cruise missiles start to get marginal.
ISIS is operating AWAY from the coasts and are keeping their forces on the move OR under cover (you can not hit what something if you do not know where it is).
One of the jobs of Special Forces is to provide on the ground knowledge of enemy locations so they can be hit by planes and/or missiles. Without that knowledge sending in planes is a waste of time.
As to Cypress, I mention FOD, Foreign Objects and Debris. Those are a jet''s worse nightmare. It is what took down the Concord. The Air Force loses planes to FOD all the time (and does inspections of its runways several times a day to pick up any FOD on or near a runway, those jet engines just suck such FOD in and the FOD destroys the engine and takes the Jet out of operations. I mention birds for they are a while know FOD, remember the jet liner that went down in NYC? The FOD that took it down were birds.
The British bases on Cypress have Forces from Turkey and Cypress within artillery range of the Air field. Which means either side and drop some shells on the runway creating instant FOD, taking out the runway till it is cleaned up. The situation in Cypress is bad enough for both sides to blame the other OR blame a third party that sneaked into the area to fire the shells. A good Morar Crew or Artillery team can fire three to five shells and move out of their firing position within two minutes. If acting as individual pieces a battery of six to eight mortars to artillery could have one or two weapons firing while the others are moving to a new firing position and setting themselves up to fire themselves.
In Vietnam the US Air Force made a huge effort to keep Mortars and Artillery miles away from its air fields so such weapons could NOT create FOD on the runway. THe Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Forces kept sneaking in Mortars to create such FOD. We saw this again in Iraq, but the US quickly isolated the areas around its bases to keep such being used by such weapons.
The US Military in many ways is still geared to fight the Soviet Red Army, a massive Army using concentration of power and deep supply routes to fight the US forces. ISIS is NO SUCH ARMY, and US Forces had difficulty defeating a similar force in the last days of the War In Iraq (in fact US forces pulled out of Iraq three days early without telling anyone so that such enemy forces would be caught unaware of the US pull out).
The problem is the US Military is still set in many ways to defeat the Soviet Red Army, not guerillas in the hills (or in the cities). That the US has planes that can fly from the US to IRaq and back after dropping bombs, is meaningless if the enemy moves in forces to where the bomber is NOT going to be.
Thus sooner or later it comes down to boots on the ground, and that is one thing Obama is opposed to for such forces are subject to attack by the locals, something air power does not have to worry about except by other advance countries (China, Japan, Russia, our NATO allies etc).
One last comment, a fully loaded B-52, B-1 or even B-2 can NOT fly to Iraq without refueling but that can be done from any airbase in Europe, but the tankers assigned to refuel such planes are thus NOT available to refuel smaller and more effective fighter bombers. The US may have the strongest military in the world, by that does not mean the Military can do everything it wants, so times thngs like geography steps in and say NO to US war plans.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)I am not suggesting war with the Turks or major boots on the ground in Syria (special forces are already deploying in Syria via Iraq). I am suggesting firm diplomacy backed by muscle with an agreed upon peace plan to remove bad actors, create a stalemate and then divide the country into zones under mandate (see Yugoslavia). There are already capable units fighting both ISIS (the Kurds) and Assad (moderate rebels in Aleppo and the South). These groups have complained bitterly about a lack of American military support despite there being strong consensus the US has the existing military infrastructure to carry out these missions. Additionally, you're overlooking what Jordan and Iraq offer in terms of places to use for close air support, arms distribution and training.
The position against a Kurdish autonomous zone is unacceptable.
The position against zones safe from the Assad regime is also unacceptable.
The West better get its plan together or this will only get worse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_intervention_against_ISIL
Nihil
(13,508 posts)
After all these years, they never learn ...
JCMach1
(27,556 posts)to the Syrian clusterfrak...
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)rebels exist to take out Assad, don't care about ISIS), they should have kept what few trainees they did have in a safer environment until they could be of use calling in airstrikes and embedding with Kurds. Whoever ordered them to be released into Syria as a force on their own, without nearby ground support, deserves to be fired.